Just moving to Nigeria and publishing security bulletins on how to break into Walmarts is still a shaky proposition, but perhaps it's safer than I think it is. The international judiciary is opaque to me.
> The computing world often resembles the lawlessness of earlier eras - where only locally-run fortifications separated civilian farmers from barbarian horsemen. A breach in this wall leads to catastrophe. It needs to be unbreakable. People who maintain fortifications shoulder a heavy responsibility.
Sounds about right. I'm not too happy about it, although I guess this particular era has its advantages as well.
Computing is actually different. There are laws for example in Germany ("Hackerparagraph") that make it illegal to produce "hacking" tools.
In the computing space - if someone breaks the rules, it is only a bunch of us that understand what rule was broken, and even then we are likely to argue over the details of it. The people doing the breaks are often anonymous. There is no shared legal framework, or enforcement, or courts. The consequences of a break are usually weak. Consider the lack of jail time for anyone involved with Superfish. Many of these people were located in the developed world.
The computing world often resembles the lawlessness of earlier eras - where only locally-run fortifications separated civilian farmers from barbarian horsemen. A breach in this wall leads to catastrophe. It needs to be unbreakable. People who maintain fortifications shoulder a heavy responsibility.